Technology Insights: Teaching a One-Year-Old to Drive

DARPA's desert race proves a challenge for robotic cars.

Like it or not, they are coming. After a hundred years of "auto" mobiles (self-powered), we're now on the threshold of "mento" mobiles which are self-guided. In spite of all the exposure gained recently by DARPA's million-dollar prize for an autonomous-vehicle off-road race from outside of Barstow, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, it was somewhat of a letdown. Out of 25 carefully pre-selected entrants (from over 100 wanna-bes), five didn't arrive, five didn't pass qualification demo runs, five didn't make it out of the starting gate, and six barely made it out of sight. The best one made it 7.5 miles, out of 150. But to put that into perspective, the Wright brothers' first flight was less than 150 feet.

While the goal of DARPA (which stands for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is avoiding deaths in military vehicles in hostile territory, the possibility of using this technology to avoid deaths on everyday streets and highways is obvious. Although government contractors, auto manufacturers and experienced robotics engineers have been working on imbedded-wire-guided, stripe-guided and self-guided ground vehicles for decades, this competition was a way of motivating everyone, including the general populace, to come up with some breakthrough technology.

Starting from scratch, there was a one-year lead time to prepare for this event, which is like teaching an infant with only rudimentary words and mobility, how to: a) identify a goal, b) interpret what he "sees," c) distinguish classes of obstacles, d) select a path, e) control the vehicle, and f) get to the goal as fast as possible.

Anyone who has ever tried to teach even a teenager to drive, for heaven's sake, will recognize the absurdity of trying to teach a machine to do that in less than a year. But actually, this is more like trying to teach a dozen infants, each with a different specialty, all jabbering at once.

GPS: "The next waypoint is 58.2 meters at 62.3 degrees."

Stereo camera: "There's a 1 x 2-meter object in the path."

Laser scanner: "It's dense and exactly 3.287 meters away."

Radar: "It's moving to the right at 3 meters per second."

Infrared camera: "It has the heat signature of a machine."

Inertial guidance: "We are already cornering at the limit."

Rear sonar: "We can't stop and back up to the right."

Speedometer: "If we slow down we might miss it."

Steering servo: "I'm decreasing steer angle 6 degrees."

Throttle servo: "I'm at 9 percent."

Brake servo: "Standing by."

Motherboard: "Would you guys shut up! I'm trying to think!"

On the other hand, once you've programmed electronics to do a task, it will never forget it (if it's safely backed up), and you can duplicate it endlessly for almost nothing. Except for the cost of the sensors — the crucial element in self-guidance. So let's consider what it takes to duplicate human perception.

Our vision, which we all take for granted (until we lose it), is incredibly complex, taking up more brain area than any other single function. It's actually at least six-dimensional: 3-D plus sensitivity to movement and the intensity and color of each "pixel." At any intersection, in an instant, our eyes can identify every object as animal, mineral or vegetable, how far away, whether it's moving, the color of traffic lights, and the best path to take. That is essentially the DARPA "million-dollar challenge." Once you solve that, there are plenty of off-road vehicles that could make the trip, given simple servo-actuators to operate the throttle, brake and steering, and common GPS to identify the ultimate goal.

To get some feel for the challenge, we selected the Axion Team's converted 4wd , which had room for an observer (me), in addition to its standby driver (Josh), and two programmers (Melanie and Richard), who are all BattleBots veterans. This team got off to a bad start at DARPA, but recovered with an unofficial 3-mile run. We selected Irwindale Speedway as the safest location for our demonstration attempt, as it's bounded by immovable concrete walls — and to get some idea how a robotic "stadium racer" might work. The Axion Team's Cherokee is a very sensible package, with an $80,000 kit of COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) computers, sensors and servos, which were part of a bulletproof system from a handicapped person's joystick-controlled vehicle.

Believe me, even at moderate speeds, it's exciting to ride around a racetrack with no one at the controls — especially when the throttle mashes down and the steering wheel turns toward the wall. Granted, DARPA has its own important agenda, but someone is really missing a show business opportunity here. Considering the everyday highway safety applications (auto manufacturers had recruiters at the DARPA race), the place to motivate competitive innovators would be a road racing class for autonomous vehicles. And to be realistic, adding moving humanlike obstacles to the course. The Axion Team successfully navigated around barrels placed in its path without touching them — although coming uncomfortably close. I declined team owner Bill Kehaly's offer to be a human obstacle.

I'm already thinking about how I would write an expert systems program for road racing. And an $80,000 controller wouldn't mean much to a race-car budget. There are already seven running competitors in California who would love to give demonstrations. Even though BattleBots has been a media success, the Irwindale Speedway managers were a little skeptical about the crowd appeal of driverless "mentomobiles" — unless it turned into a demolition derby. What's your vote?

Considering what everyone learned at this year's DARPA event, next year it's going to be a race for the million dollars! But still, off-road is relatively simple, compared to traffic. Even after the race to Las Vegas is accomplished, what will be needed next is recognition of street signs and traffic lights, and then maybe voice-command. But the use of those existing handicapped driver servo systems illustrates what this might mean to better mobility for physically-impaired drivers, or as a safety backup, or a supplement to those with impaired vision — or impaired common sense.

Being there, and seeing what a challenge it is to duplicate human driving, truly makes you appreciate our miraculous "wet" processors.

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
Road & Track participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.